columbia-first-v-mayflower-electoral-commission-et-al

Mayflower District Court

#columbia-first-v-mayflower-electoral-commission-et-al

This is the start of #columbia-first-v-mayflower-electoral-commission-et-al channel.

clerkFlow Bot2025-08-04 04:10 p.m.

New Case

Columbia First v. Mayflower Electoral Commission

Case Type

civil

Case Number

CV-375-25

clerkFlow pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:16 p.m.

clerkFlow Bot2025-08-04 04:12 p.m.

Channel Permissions Synced

Permissions have been synced to Chambers of Hon’ble Judge Singhski.

Nicklaus used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-08-04 04:12 p.m.

Case Modified

@Nicklaus

has added @bob78711new to the case channel.

Nicklaus 2025-08-04 04:13 p.m.

@bob78711new

@singhski

bob78711new 2025-08-04 04:14 p.m.

bob78711new 2025-08-04 04:18 p.m.

Civil Complaint uploaded

Courtesy Copy: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GFRT6dFnvAyT27LNfFyBAOPjlZu125cI/view?usp=sharing

CV-375-25 Plantiff Civil Complaint, .pdf

bob78711new 2025-08-04 04:18 p.m.

Cc @singhski

bob78711new 2025-08-04 04:19 p.m.

Plaintiff requesting a TRO hearing at earliest availability

singhski 2025-08-04 04:33 p.m.

@Nicklaus

Reassign, I'm on LOA

singhski 2025-08-04 04:43 p.m.

also I would have to recuse from this because I am an employee of the MEC

krm 2025-08-04 04:53 p.m.

Where is the tro application@bob78711new

clerkFlow Bot2025-08-04 04:54 p.m.

Channel Permissions Synced

Permissions have been synced to Chambers of Chancery, Lord Shah.

krm used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-08-04 04:54 p.m.

Case Modified

@krm

has added @bob78711new to the case channel.

clerkFlow Bot2025-08-04 05:02 p.m.

Channel Permissions Synced

Permissions have been synced to Chambers of Chancellor Cabot.

krm used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-08-04 05:02 p.m.

Case Modified

@krm

has added @bob78711new to the case channel.

krm 2025-08-04 05:02 p.m.

@cabot

cabot 2025-08-04 05:04 p.m.

Hello thank you

cabot 2025-08-04 05:05 p.m.

@bob78711new

TRO Application

cabot

@bob78711new TRO Application

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:06 p.m.

Apologies just ate lunch

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:06 p.m.

I have never filed a TRO before so I did not know I needed an application

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:06 p.m.

give me 20 minutes to draft

cabot 2025-08-04 05:06 p.m.

Is this chat gpt

cabot

Is this chat gpt

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:07 p.m.

cabot used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-08-04 05:13 p.m.

Case Modified

@cabot

has added @actxrz to the case channel.

cabot 2025-08-04 05:13 p.m.

I intend on holding an ingame/vc hearing for the TRO in the next 30 mins

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:13 p.m.

PLEASE DO VC

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:13 p.m.

LMAO

cabot 2025-08-04 05:25 p.m.

YEP

cabot 2025-08-04 05:25 p.m.

VC AND INGAME

cabot 2025-08-04 05:25 p.m.

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:32 p.m.

Apologies if it is messy this is my first time doing a TRO, if there is a state standard I dont know about I am also sorry I just used the federal standard.

Courtesy Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kDZ0tghjLvBcws-2oh6b-BDtkj2je9pp/view?usp=sharing

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:33 p.m.

cc; @cabot

@krm

cabot

VC AND INGAME

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:34 p.m.

Also I'd like to call into question the status of @actxrz considering he is banned from the game

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:35 p.m.

my presence in game will be purely spiritual

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:35 p.m.

its the deep state... they dont want me to vote... Stay in Line .

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:36 p.m.

@cabot

u ready my lord?

actxrz

its the deep state... they dont want me to vote... Stay in Line .

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:36 p.m.

if your banned does that not mean your CRed?

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:36 p.m.

i am banned from the game

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:36 p.m.

i am not banned from anything else

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:36 p.m.

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.

I am just not gonna care anymore

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.

because I am not sado and cant focus on more than one major issue

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.

at a time

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.

oh ok

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.

maybe thats a skill u should work on

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.

multi-tasking

cabot 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.

ok we will do just stage then

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.

very very very very useful skill to have in life

cabot

ok we will do just stage then

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:38 p.m.

here? or in clark server(edited)

actxrz

multi-tasking

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:38 p.m.

well if I did not have a load of work

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:38 p.m.

of other stuff

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:38 p.m.

would be easier

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:38 p.m.

load of work..

cabot 2025-08-04 05:38 p.m.

i think clark server has stage set up

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:38 p.m.

who is u lying to rn twin

actxrz

who is u lying to rn twin

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:38 p.m.

I'm drafting a buisness law cariculum for MSU and I have my representation of dept's

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:39 p.m.

piled with real life

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:39 p.m.

u shove all ur cases to ur colleagues

actxrz

u shove all ur cases to ur colleagues

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:39 p.m.

When it goes to court yes

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:39 p.m.

otherwise I handle stuff

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:39 p.m.

ive been focusing on policy

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:39 p.m.

but this is not a chat!

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:39 p.m.

lets stay on topic

bob78711new

I'm drafting a buisness law cariculum for MSU and I have my representation of dept's

actxrz 2025-08-04 05:39 p.m.

@acerxtro

what u doing mh

actxrz

@acerxtro what u doing mh

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:39 p.m.

he is dead

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:40 p.m.

I am the only one hosting

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:40 p.m.

sometimes dave

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:53 p.m.

@cabot

when are we doing this?

bob78711new

@cabot when are we doing this?

cabot 2025-08-04 05:53 p.m.

7 mins

cabot 2025-08-04 05:53 p.m.

main server

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:53 p.m.

wilco

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:53 p.m.

In game?

cabot 2025-08-04 05:58 p.m.

vc is fine

cabot 2025-08-04 05:58 p.m.

main discord server

cabot 2025-08-04 05:58 p.m.

@bob78711new

bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:59 p.m.

I am awaiting the stage

actxrz 2025-08-04 06:00 p.m.

@cabot

can u gimme a few mins

cabot 2025-08-04 06:00 p.m.

sure

cabot 2025-08-04 06:00 p.m.

we'll push back until 5-10 past

cabot

we'll push back until 5-10 past

bob78711new 2025-08-04 06:02 p.m.

lets get the stage up atleast

cabot 2025-08-04 06:03 p.m.

yeah ive asked ca niw

bob78711new 2025-08-04 06:05 p.m.

a mod can also do it too

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-08-04 06:08 p.m.

https://discord.com/events/1183291978499235890/1402042573782257668

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-08-04 06:08 p.m.

@bob78711new

@actxrz

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ

@bob78711new

@actxrz

bob78711new 2025-08-04 06:09 p.m.

Joined

bob78711new 2025-08-04 06:09 p.m.

invite me up please

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-08-04 06:10 p.m.

5064-4d55 is server id

actxrz 2025-08-04 06:11 p.m.

ur funny. server id

actxrz 2025-08-04 06:11 p.m.

im BANNED

cabot 2025-08-04 06:11 p.m.

where u at boy @actxrz

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ

https://discord.com/events/1183291978499235890/1402042573782257668

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-08-04 06:11 p.m.

Theres a stage VC smart one

actxrz 2025-08-04 06:11 p.m.

bob better be speaking

actxrz 2025-08-04 06:11 p.m.

i joined

cabot 2025-08-04 06:11 p.m.

Confirm @bob78711new

cabot

Confirm @bob78711new

bob78711new 2025-08-04 06:12 p.m.

I can speak yes

cabot 2025-08-04 06:13 p.m.

can you hear me

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-08-04 06:14 p.m.

yes its gonna be live stream by MSPAN

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-08-04 06:14 p.m.

@bob78711new

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-08-04 06:15 p.m.

bob78711new 2025-08-04 06:30 p.m.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mcsfcitg16wPgSRrO85Ze1fnW1zycU6l/view

MEC Form 2M — Limited Waiver of Immunity_ August 3, 2025 (#1).pdf

bob78711new 2025-08-04 06:30 p.m.

bob78711new 2025-08-04 06:56 p.m.

Nicklaus used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-08-04 11:14 p.m.

Case Modified

@Nicklaus

has added @meowiitten to the case channel.

bob78711new 2025-08-05 01:58 a.m.

Forgot to ask can we get my co counsel added @ian is my co counsel, he will file his NOA soon

bob78711new 2025-08-05 01:58 a.m.

Cc: @Nicklaus

@Xerxy

Xerxy used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-08-05 04:14 a.m.

Case Modified

@Xerxy

has added @ian to the case channel.

cabot used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-08-05 05:12 a.m.

Case Modified

@cabot

has added @meowiitten to the case channel.

cabot 2025-08-05 05:12 a.m.

Hey

cabot 2025-08-05 05:12 a.m.

@meowiitten

ian 2025-08-05 06:25 a.m.

Hi I'm bob's co counsel

ian 2025-08-05 06:25 a.m.

I will file a noa soon as I can

meowiitten 2025-08-05 01:57 p.m.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

@cabot @ian @bob78711new

cabot 2025-08-05 02:11 p.m.

Tysm

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:15 p.m.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO INTERVEN

@cabot @ian @bob78711new

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:17 p.m.

@cabot

Plaintiff requests that our response to these two be due 2 days after the PI hearing

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:22 p.m.

@cabot

Since the PI concerns a TRO on now moot and resolved issues the PI hearing is unnecessary

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:23 p.m.

The issue of their registration is due for further litigation and was not the subject of the TRO

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:24 p.m.

@meowiitten

have you disclosed the fact that you were inquiring about representing the plaintiff to the department of justice before representing the government as required by bar rule 1.7 C?

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:24 p.m.

DOJ waived the conflict of interest please calm down g

meowiitten

DOJ waived the conflict of interest please calm down g

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:25 p.m.

We'd like to see some proof of that

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:25 p.m.

Also there is no conflict the CF approached me and I declined

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:25 p.m.

I have no interest in this case

meowiitten

Also there is no conflict the CF approached me and I declined

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:26 p.m.

no you stipulated that they need to drop me if you want them to work, case details were infact shared, and section C states: "Even when a significant risk requiring an attorney to comply with paragraph (b)"

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:26 p.m.

your still required to disclose

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:26 p.m.

Now I would like to see proof of this disclosure

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:27 p.m.

sorry cut it off

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:27 p.m.

"is not present," is the rest after be

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:27 p.m.

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:27 p.m.

What’s my interest in this case

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:27 p.m.

Representing the DOJ?

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:28 p.m.

You were given facts about the plaintiff and showed interest in representing the plaintiff, I would like to know if you disclosed that information as required by the bar ethic rules

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:29 p.m.

If you wanna go this route I can just move to strike you as counsel as lawyer-as-witness

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:29 p.m.

Again I have no interest :/

meowiitten

If you wanna go this route I can just move to strike you as counsel as lawyer-as-witness

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:29 p.m.

I'm not a witness

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:29 p.m.

I am just affected

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:29 p.m.

You will be

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:29 p.m.

We intend to call you at trial

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:29 p.m.

Still pro se

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:29 p.m.

Have you disclosed it?

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:30 p.m.

Then you misrepresented yourself at the TRO hearing

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:30 p.m.

How?

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:30 p.m.

You also filed on behalf of every other Plaintiff…? As a pro se litigant?(edited)

meowiitten

You also filed on behalf of every other Plaintiff…? As a pro se litigant?(edited)

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:30 p.m.

Pro se for myself

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:30 p.m.

their attorney

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:31 p.m.

Please stop dodgeing the question

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:31 p.m.

have you

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:31 p.m.

disclosed it

bob78711new

their attorney

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:31 p.m.

That’s not even possible?

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:32 p.m.

Well I’ll get the motion to strike out

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:32 p.m.

Have you disclosed it

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:34 p.m.

1. You claim to be pro se
2. You filed a Complaint on behalf of all Plaintiffs anyways
3. You are a witness, and therefore violating the “lawyer-as-witness” rule

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:34 p.m.

There’s a few things that can happen

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:34 p.m.

I am not a witness

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:34 p.m.

Well, I mean, I already said we intend to call you

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:34 p.m.

everything I know is 2nd hand

meowiitten

Well, I mean, I already said we intend to call you

bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:34 p.m.

Well I am not listing myself as a witness now so

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:44 p.m.

@cabot

While I do preserve our right to file a motion to disqualify, I'd like you to ask bob if he is pro se or attorney for the Plaintiffs. He filed the Complaint not only in the name of himself, but also on behalf of all the other Plaintiffs. So I'm a little confused to what is going on here(edited)

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:44 p.m.

To my understanding someone can't be pro se and then also represent other Plaintiffs... even if they're Bar certified... that's just now how that works

meowiitten

To my understanding someone can't be pro se and then also represent other Plaintiffs... even if they're Bar certified... that's just now how that works

ian 2025-08-05 03:46 p.m.

You don't think he can represent the rest of the plaintiffs in a case in which he is a plaintiff?

ian

You don't think he can represent the rest of the plaintiffs in a case in which he is a plaintiff?

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:47 p.m.

I'm just confused

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:47 p.m.

He said he's pro se but he is also representing everyone else, and we intend to call him as a witness. So........

ian 2025-08-05 03:48 p.m.

Can you cite an authority for his disqualification

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:48 p.m.

I will but I'm waiting for Cabot to get him to answer the question

ian 2025-08-05 03:48 p.m.

To my knowledge we allow a plaintiff to represent his co-plaintiffs

meowiitten

I will but I'm waiting for Cabot to get him to answer the question

ian 2025-08-05 03:48 p.m.

What question

meowiitten

@cabot While I do preserve our right to file a motion to disqualify, I'd like you to ask bob if he is pro se or attorney for the Plaintiffs. He filed the Complaint ...(edited)

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:49 p.m.

ian 2025-08-05 03:49 p.m.

He is representing himself and his co-plaintiffs

ian 2025-08-05 03:49 p.m.

Why would that not be allowed

ian 2025-08-05 03:50 p.m.

Co-plaintiffs are duly informed and consent

ian 2025-08-05 03:50 p.m.

It's much more efficient this way

ian 2025-08-05 03:50 p.m.

It's done irl

ian

Co-plaintiffs are duly informed and consent

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:51 p.m.

It's not so much as that they consent

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:52 p.m.

If he's proceeding pro se he can only represent his own interest

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:52 p.m.

And then there's the secondary issue that he is a lawyer-as-witness

ian 2025-08-05 03:54 p.m.

Would you be okay with it if he represented himself only, and I the rest of the parties

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:55 p.m.

"Although Stoner is a licensed attorney, and has been admitted to practice before this court, ... Stoner's authority to prosecute a qui tam action on behalf of the United States in propria persona and held that Stoner could not proceed pro se...." Stoner v. Santa Clara County Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1117–1118 (9th Cir. 2007)

ian

Would you be okay with it if he represented himself only, and I the rest of the parties

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:55 p.m.

You will need to refile the complaint because he filed on behalf of all parties

ian 2025-08-05 03:55 p.m.

That'd be really needlessly hefty on the judicial economy(edited)

ian 2025-08-05 03:55 p.m.

We can just state it for the record

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:55 p.m.

Judicial economy is hardly a concern

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:56 p.m.

I've never seen a real life opinion that actually cites the judicial economy lol

ian 2025-08-05 03:56 p.m.

We do

ian 2025-08-05 03:56 p.m.

We often talk about it here

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:56 p.m.

It's not a magic shield

ian 2025-08-05 03:56 p.m.

It's a metaphor for saying that there's no need in doing all that when the same exact result can be accomplished by something simpler

ian 2025-08-05 03:57 p.m.

I can just state it for the record

ian 2025-08-05 03:57 p.m.

@cabot

if you would allow me

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:58 p.m.

You can't cure a Complaint retroactively that was invalid at it's inception

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:58 p.m.

The only thing that can be done without refiling is Bob removes every other Plaintiff

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:58 p.m.

And just litigates this for himself

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:58 p.m.

But then we need to vacate the TRO

meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:58 p.m.

And look at harm done

meowiitten

You can't cure a Complaint retroactively that was invalid at it's inception

ian 2025-08-05 04:02 p.m.

Kind of can though

ian 2025-08-05 04:03 p.m.

You can just imagine I signed it instead of bob

ian 2025-08-05 04:03 p.m.

Same thing

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:03 p.m.

Let's not get metaphysical

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:03 p.m.

Please

ian 2025-08-05 04:03 p.m.

The issue is he submitted and signed it no?

ian 2025-08-05 04:03 p.m.

When he cant rep CF and the co plaintiffs

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:03 p.m.

He submitted, signed, filed, sealed, drafted, advised, argued the TRO on behalf of all other plaintiffs, and consented...(edited)

ian 2025-08-05 04:03 p.m.

So just imagine he didn't, judicial economy is preserved, everybody is happy

meowiitten

He submitted, signed, filed, sealed, drafted, advised, argued the TRO on behalf of all other plaintiffs, and consented...(edited)

ian 2025-08-05 04:04 p.m.

Okay

ian 2025-08-05 04:04 p.m.

He wrote it with me

ian 2025-08-05 04:04 p.m.

What is the issue

ian 2025-08-05 04:04 p.m.

@cabot

In my mind there is no need for further complication

ian 2025-08-05 04:05 p.m.

I will proceed as counsel given sado's concerns

ian 2025-08-05 04:05 p.m.

The complaint should continue to be accepted under my name

bob78711new 2025-08-05 04:08 p.m.

@ian

is first chair

bob78711new 2025-08-05 04:08 p.m.

He has been away from his computer for a while

bob78711new 2025-08-05 04:08 p.m.

So I was handling emergency proceedings

ian 2025-08-05 04:09 p.m.

The issue wasnt raised before so it shouldn't be redressed retroactively

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:09 p.m.

Okay but like you represented every other plaintiff. I don't know what to tell you. This issue just appeared to me and we haven't filed an answer yet

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:09 p.m.

It's just time to bear the consequences of that decision

ian 2025-08-05 04:10 p.m.

You attended the TRO hearing and didn't move for anything(edited)

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:10 p.m.

Don't be ridiculous alright

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:10 p.m.

Not worth making yourself out to be a fool over this

ian 2025-08-05 04:11 p.m.

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:11 p.m.

Let the other guy do that

ian 2025-08-05 04:12 p.m.

I don't think apparent foolishness is as linear as you make it out to be

ian 2025-08-05 04:12 p.m.

I've been competent in all of my cases in my opinion but some people will still tell you I'm a bad attorney

ian 2025-08-05 04:12 p.m.

Some will tell you I'm wonderful

ian 2025-08-05 04:13 p.m.

What matters here is that you're only raising the issue now, and it's being corrected now, so there should be no "consequences"(edited)

ian 2025-08-05 04:13 p.m.

Additionally what I've offered is entirely sufficient for redressing the mistake

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:14 p.m.

Onto the next matter, what is the utility behind a PI hearing? I think that the TRO only concerned candidacy and they're already on the ballot (the voting is happening right now). So what is there to argue? I think we can just proceed to the business license issue

ian 2025-08-05 04:14 p.m.

So are you okay with letting me just be counsel of record from now

ian 2025-08-05 04:14 p.m.

With no other fixes

meowiitten

Onto the next matter, what is the utility behind a PI hearing? I think that the TRO only concerned candidacy and they're already on the ballot (the voting is happening right now). ...

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:15 p.m.

I didn't say that but I did ask this

ian 2025-08-05 04:15 p.m.

You're just changing the topic somewhat conveniently though which is why I'm asking before we move on

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:16 p.m.

My answer to what you said will be in a motion

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:16 p.m.

Just please answer the question

ian 2025-08-05 04:16 p.m.

Alright

ian 2025-08-05 04:17 p.m.

The TRO asks for the business license to be reinstated

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:17 p.m.

So you want a second TRO?

ian 2025-08-05 04:17 p.m.

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:17 p.m.

The first TRO did everything short of unsuspending the license

ian 2025-08-05 04:18 p.m.

It wasn't as urgent as the ballot access, so it wasn't granted during the TRO, but since this is a PI hearing with more notice, we need the license unsuspenddd

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:18 p.m.

So the PI is limited to the scope of the first TRO and determining if it should be extended

ian 2025-08-05 04:18 p.m.

Do you have an authority that we can't make the PI slightly broader

ian 2025-08-05 04:18 p.m.

The immediate issue during the TRO hearing was that the candidates didn't have ballot access

ian 2025-08-05 04:18 p.m.

That's been fixed

ian 2025-08-05 04:18 p.m.

It's no longer immediate, no emergency

ian 2025-08-05 04:19 p.m.

So we can more efficiently argue and look at the remaining issues

ian 2025-08-05 04:19 p.m.

It's still irreparable harm that you withdrew our license, we have a right to due process

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:19 p.m.

Well the issue with a PI here is that it essentially would attempt to resolve the case before it's even over

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:20 p.m.

If you want due process you would be better suited toward a summary judgment

ian

The immediate issue during the TRO hearing was that the candidates didn't have ballot access

ian 2025-08-05 04:20 p.m.

There were literally 48 hours then to get ballot access back or lose the election forever

meowiitten

Well the issue with a PI here is that it essentially would attempt to resolve the case before it's even over

ian 2025-08-05 04:20 p.m.

I mean an injunction is an injunction

ian 2025-08-05 04:20 p.m.

If we are entitled we are entitled

ian 2025-08-05 04:21 p.m.

If you don't like injunctions you can argue it in the supreme court of the united states because no other court can get rid of the concept of injunctions since SCOTUS has continuously upheld them

ian 2025-08-05 04:21 p.m.

We want due process, there is irreparable harm, and what we are, therefore, suited for is an injunction

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:21 p.m.

Not what I said

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:22 p.m.

Courts are generally obligated not to give full effect to relief before a case is fully decided on the merits

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:22 p.m.

Which is why I suggest summary judgment

ian 2025-08-05 04:22 p.m.

It's not full effect

ian 2025-08-05 04:23 p.m.

It's temporary relief to avoid irreparable harm

ian 2025-08-05 04:23 p.m.

That's what PIs are for

ian 2025-08-05 04:23 p.m.

The test for PIs is identical to the test for TROs

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:23 p.m.

Giving you due process that you were not entitled to would resolve the case lol

ian 2025-08-05 04:25 p.m.

It would make it so that we aren't subjected to irreparable harm UNTIL the case is resolved

ian 2025-08-05 04:25 p.m.

The balance of equities is in our favor

ian 2025-08-05 04:26 p.m.

I explained this to DOJ but you aren't in the ticket I believe

ian 2025-08-05 04:26 p.m.

Or something like it

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:26 p.m.

No reason to keep making stuff up alright

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:26 p.m.

Anyways

ian 2025-08-05 04:27 p.m.

I'm not making up anything

ian 2025-08-05 04:27 p.m.

We satisfy Winter in this case

ian 2025-08-05 04:27 p.m.

So an injunction is proper besides the full SJ and adjudication and whatnot

ian 2025-08-05 04:28 p.m.

Specifically I explained how the balance of equities applies (I think) in the DOJ ticket, I'll add you

bob78711new 2025-08-05 04:28 p.m.

sado also failed to disclose his prior dealing with the DOJ

ian 2025-08-05 04:29 p.m.

That's a separate issue

ian 2025-08-05 04:45 p.m.

@cabot

@meowiitten

I formally move for sanctions against the government

ian

@cabot

@meowiitten I formally move for sanctions against the government

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:46 p.m.

For

meowiitten

For

ian 2025-08-05 04:46 p.m.

For email bombing me

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:46 p.m.

ian 2025-08-05 04:47 p.m.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1402391073782890677/1402391352196464666/image0.jpg?ex=6893be39&is=68926cb9&hm=ac5dd53f377dbeda3177d8c76d2fcf43e4d4946ebb0aedd6f835a99f71a63874&

meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:47 p.m.

LOL

meowiitten

LOL

ian 2025-08-05 04:47 p.m.

its not funny

ian 2025-08-05 04:47 p.m.

It wouldve been funny if it were Grindr notifications

ian 2025-08-05 04:47 p.m.

Its just random ass services idgaf about

ian 2025-08-05 04:47 p.m.

So its not quite in the realm of funny

ian 2025-08-05 04:48 p.m.

@cabot

unionware knows but sanctions are appropriate because I was communicating about the case to orange right prior

ian 2025-08-05 04:48 p.m.

I sent him a litigation hold letter

ian 2025-08-05 04:48 p.m.

Please hold him in contempt

cabot 2025-08-05 05:49 p.m.

Sorry what

cabot 2025-08-05 05:49 p.m.

I will reply once I get a TLDR here

cabot 2025-08-05 05:49 p.m.

Talking to each other is never useful

cabot 2025-08-05 05:50 p.m.

Both sides post a TLDR

cabot

Both sides post a TLDR

ian 2025-08-05 05:52 p.m.

I will your honor

ian 2025-08-05 05:52 p.m.

Can we please first address the email bombing situation

cabot

Sorry what

meowiitten 2025-08-05 05:52 p.m.

I'll relink my motions

meowiitten 2025-08-05 05:52 p.m.

With a schedule

ian 2025-08-05 05:52 p.m.

The government has retaliated against me for suing then

ian 2025-08-05 05:52 p.m.

Them

ian 2025-08-05 05:52 p.m.

By doing something that is illegal in real life @cabot

cabot 2025-08-05 05:56 p.m.

Then report it to the real life authorities

cabot 2025-08-05 05:56 p.m.

I’m just an online judge

cabot 2025-08-05 05:56 p.m.

Plus you have no direct evidence, it’s barely circumstantial

cabot

Plus you have no direct evidence, it’s barely circumstantial

ian 2025-08-05 05:56 p.m.

It happened like 5 minutes after

ian 2025-08-05 05:57 p.m.

Irl thats enough to convict somebody

meowiitten 2025-08-05 05:57 p.m.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL OF RECORD

@cabot @ian

meowiitten 2025-08-05 05:57 p.m.

DEFENDANTS' MOTION SCHEDULE

1. [Defendants' First Motion to Dismiss](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hffz8h-M5d3lXiQ3MqxCCWavnJx7zT-p/view?usp=sharing)
2. [Government's Motion to Intervene](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1exCitICBKBMHPSp4YIwZshUhAB2eArJB/view?usp=sharing)
3. [Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yR5ccAMlKN0Y2cRcqRqaCN_gQXk5p1-B/view?usp=sharing) (Emergent)

cabot 2025-08-05 05:57 p.m.

Uh no that’s enough once datalogs are retrieved

cabot 2025-08-05 05:57 p.m.

To correlate to those facts

cabot pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:16 p.m.

cabot 2025-08-05 05:57 p.m.

meowiitten

DEFENDANTS' MOTION SCHEDULE 1. [Defendants' First Motion to Dismiss](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hffz8h-M5d3lXiQ3MqxCCWavnJx7zT-p/view?usp=sharing) 2. [Government's ...

meowiitten 2025-08-05 05:57 p.m.

Pin this as well

meowiitten 2025-08-05 05:58 p.m.

Also 3 should be resolved before the PI hearing

cabot pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:16 p.m.

cabot 2025-08-05 05:58 p.m.

What’s the difference between 1 and 3

meowiitten 2025-08-05 05:58 p.m.

1 is your typical MTD

meowiitten 2025-08-05 05:59 p.m.

3 is asking to dismiss the complaint because it was filed improperly by a pro se plaintiff who represents himself as the attorney of each and every other plaintiff, or disqualify him as counsel

meowiitten 2025-08-05 05:59 p.m.

Just have to read it. It's 3 pages @cabot

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:03 p.m.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yR5ccAMlKN0Y2cRcqRqaCN_gQXk5p1-B/view?usp=sharing

CV-375-25 Defendant Mot. #3.pdf

ian 2025-08-05 06:06 p.m.

@cabot

Mr Bob already withdrew as counsel

ian 2025-08-05 06:06 p.m.

I am the counsel

ian 2025-08-05 06:06 p.m.

3 is moot

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:07 p.m.

If you read the motion, you would understand it is not moot

cabot 2025-08-05 06:10 p.m.

Okay sure he’s disqualified

cabot

Okay sure he’s disqualified

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:10 p.m.

There’s another half to consider

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:10 p.m.

The entire first half

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:11 p.m.

I notably turn to Jones ex rel. Jones

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:11 p.m.

And Stoner v. Santa Clara County

cabot 2025-08-05 06:11 p.m.

Oh I see, interesting

ian 2025-08-05 06:11 p.m.

I notably turn to how that would just be inadequate for purposes of preserving the judicial economy

cabot 2025-08-05 06:11 p.m.

Anyone got the link to the case or do I need to westlaw it

cabot

Anyone got the link to the case or do I need to westlaw it

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:11 p.m.

I have it

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:12 p.m.

One second

cabot

Anyone got the link to the case or do I need to westlaw it

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:15 p.m.

Jones ex rel. Jones: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3096932782182644455&q=jones+ex+rel+jones&hl=en&as_sdt=40003 (affirming dismissal of a complaint filed pro se on behalf of others and rejecting attempted cure through later amendment or counsel substitution because the complaint was a "nullity" from the beginning)

Stoner v. Santa Clara County: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_casecase=17442823136747737903&q=Stoner+v.+Santa+Clara+County&hl=en&as_sdt=40003 (dismissing even a licensed attorney’s pro se qui tam action because he “ha[d] no authority to prosecute an action... on behalf of others than himself”).

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:16 p.m.

It's unfortunate that we proceed this far under these circumstances but

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:16 p.m.

These things happen all the time

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:16 p.m.

An incompetent attorney filed a deficient complaint

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:16 p.m.

Who tried to be pro se

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:16 p.m.

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:17 p.m.

cabot 2025-08-05 06:17 p.m.

Thanks

ian 2025-08-05 06:17 p.m.

Your honor would you like me to reintroduce the complaint under my name

ian 2025-08-05 06:17 p.m.

You can dismiss, I reintroduce

ian 2025-08-05 06:17 p.m.

It's that easy here

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:18 p.m.

Yes if it's dismissed

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:18 p.m.

Dismissed without prejudice

ian 2025-08-05 06:18 p.m.

I disagree that our rules mirror federal rules

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:18 p.m.

The TRO needs to be vacated then

cabot 2025-08-05 06:18 p.m.

And why can't the court just generously utilise it's equity powers

ian 2025-08-05 06:18 p.m.

And I think you have yet to prove that

cabot 2025-08-05 06:18 p.m.

to cure this

cabot 2025-08-05 06:18 p.m.

i think anyone can see what he was trying to do here

cabot 2025-08-05 06:18 p.m.

admittedly sloppy but not exactly unascertainable

cabot

And why can't the court just generously utilise it's equity powers

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:19 p.m.

Because any amendment would essentially bend the complaint beyond recognition. He was trying to litigate other people's harms in a pro se capacity. And the complaint stands to this day.

ian 2025-08-05 06:19 p.m.

The court does have inherent authority to manage its docket and like I said your honor it is in the interest of the judicial economy to exercise it

ian 2025-08-05 06:19 p.m.

The cases sado cited apply federally

ian 2025-08-05 06:19 p.m.

We have no rules regarding that to my knowledge

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:19 p.m.

It's the same in principle?

ian 2025-08-05 06:19 p.m.

He has not cited any

ian 2025-08-05 06:20 p.m.

So it's a weak argument that asks for a procedural "safeguard" that is not actually a safeguard but rather completely unnecessary

ian 2025-08-05 06:20 p.m.

It'd result in the dismissal and reintroduction of the complaint, this time signed by me and not bob

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:20 p.m.

If people are simply allowed to amend, it would defeat the purpose of a motion to dismiss and the federal precedent surrounding them. I've been over this with Judge acerxtro, and he agreed in the end(edited)

ian 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.

Right but

ian 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.

This isnt any motion to dismiss

ian 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.

You have literally no issue with the complaint at all except for who signed it

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.

Wrong

ian 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.

I can just sign it and send it here

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.

First motion to dismiss

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.

The entire first motion

ian 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.

Right

ian 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.

I know that

ian 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.

That's not what's being discussed

ian 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.

I will address that separately but here we are talking about the third motion

ian

You have literally no issue with the complaint at all except for who signed it

ian 2025-08-05 06:22 p.m.

@cabot

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:22 p.m.

You have not cited any precedent to your position besides "it's federal so we should ignore it"

ian 2025-08-05 06:22 p.m.

You're the movant?

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:22 p.m.

You mention judicial economy but that is only a concern for administrative matters

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:22 p.m.

This is not administrative as it goes to the complaint itself

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:23 p.m.

There are many instances where someone's criminal case can be dismissed multiple times, multiple mistrials, and they are still made to refile over and over

ian 2025-08-05 06:23 p.m.

If the third motion is accepted, the FACT IS, all that will happen is 1. Dismissal w/o prej; 2. Reintroduction of the same complaint, now signed by me; 3. Compl. accepted; 4. TRO re-introduced

ian 2025-08-05 06:23 p.m.

Literally nothing will happen

ian 2025-08-05 06:23 p.m.

It's useless

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:23 p.m.

THat's good

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:23 p.m.

That's what I want

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:23 p.m.

Filing a complaint pro se on behalf of others = a legal nullity. That's all

ian 2025-08-05 06:24 p.m.

Ok well I think it's not necessary and given the case and how fragile it is the court shouldn't be so quick to dismiss

ian 2025-08-05 06:24 p.m.

Just let me introduce the amended version with only a changed signature

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:24 p.m.

Then you are bending the case beyond recognition

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:24 p.m.

This is a pro se lawsuit

ian 2025-08-05 06:24 p.m.

Bob has withdrawn his representation of himself and others

ian 2025-08-05 06:24 p.m.

I have NOAd

ian 2025-08-05 06:25 p.m.

Can we allow the judge to rule

ian 2025-08-05 06:25 p.m.

@cabot

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:25 p.m.

Then this case needs to be dismissed if the Plaintiff abandoned his claims by withdrawal?

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:25 p.m.

Want of prosecution

meowiitten

Then this case needs to be dismissed if the Plaintiff abandoned his claims by withdrawal?

ian 2025-08-05 06:25 p.m.

Is that what I said

ian 2025-08-05 06:25 p.m.

I said he withdrew his representation of himself

ian 2025-08-05 06:25 p.m.

He obtained counsel

ian 2025-08-05 06:25 p.m.

E.g., me

ian 2025-08-05 06:25 p.m.

@cabot

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.

You can't amend a complaint that was legally deficient from the start. It's just not how it works. It's never been that way. If I filed this case in federal court the magistrate would just dismiss it near-automatically. Maybe it is in Mayflower (???) but nowhere else.

cabot 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.

SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STOP TALKING TO EACHOTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cabot

Okay sure he’s disqualified

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.

Can we disqualify sado

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.

he broke the bar ethics rules by failing to disclose his relationship with us to the DOJ

cabot 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.

Hm?

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.

I can write a paper motion

cabot

Hm?

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.

was going to work for us at first

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.

but we decided not to hire him

cabot 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.

Uh what the helly

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.

under the bar rules

ian 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.

He also didn't get consent from bob

cabot 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.

Did you divulge information to him about the case

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.

he is required to disclose that to the DOJ

cabot

Did you divulge information to him about the case

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.

yes

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.

we discussed strategy briefly

cabot 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.

uh sado..

ian 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.

Yes and he hasn't asked us consent

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.

I have 2 witnissess to support this as well

ian 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.

Additionally he didnt inform the DOJ

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.

and he has not informed the DOJ

cabot

Did you divulge information to him about the case

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.

Actually what happened was they added me to a voice call group chat, without me even prompting that, and asked me to represent them. I expressly declined and DOJ waived any and all COI

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.

They literally reached out to me and added me to a voice call

ian 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.

We didnt waive anything

meowiitten

Actually what happened was they added me to a voice call group chat, without me even prompting that, and asked me to represent them. I expressly declined and DOJ waived any and all...

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.

ian 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.

They told you what happened

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.

you said

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.

you would not work the case unless they droped me from the ticket

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.

and continued to argue to 30 minutes

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.

we talked before that

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.

before you made your position

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.

clear

ian 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.

Whether you agreed to be told or not, you were told privileged information, and you did not get consent from bob or CF to now try this case from the other side @meowiitten

@cabot

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.

meowiitten

Click to see attachment.

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.

I have 2 witnissess who can back up what I am saying

cabot 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.

Affidavits everyone

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.

Thank you

cabot

Affidavits everyone

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.

ian 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.

Just felt like it

ian 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.

Honestly

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.

Dude this is like Trump adding Jack Smith to a text groupchat

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.

Asking him to be his lawyer

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.

And then the next Trump being like

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.

Filing a motion to disqualify

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.

And being like

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:31 p.m.

HE TRIED TO REPRESENT US

ian 2025-08-05 06:31 p.m.

We will have affidavits

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:31 p.m.

Dude you people added me to a groupchat without me even prompting it

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:31 p.m.

Lmfaoooo

ian 2025-08-05 06:31 p.m.

Also the government should have many attorneys

ian 2025-08-05 06:31 p.m.

They are the government

ian 2025-08-05 06:31 p.m.

So long as we present the affidavit (unless sado can prove somebody perjured themselves) he should be disqualified

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:32 p.m.

Just know as soon as you file these utterly false affidavits without any evidence I am going to file a motion for sanctions

ian 2025-08-05 06:32 p.m.

An affidavit is evidence

ian 2025-08-05 06:32 p.m.

And you can't move for sanctions if you can't prove an affidavit is false

ian 2025-08-05 06:32 p.m.

But we've made no indication that we're going to perjure anybody, and that's because we won't

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:33 p.m.

1. The DOJ waived any conflict of interest,
2. I never agreed to represent the plaintiffs,
3. I was added involuntarily to a chat, and
4. Any affidavits suggesting otherwise would be false and sanctionable.

ian 2025-08-05 06:34 p.m.

1. Ok, that's not all that's required
2. Doesn't matter at all if they told you privileged information
3. Okay, again it doesn't matter at all if they told you privileged information
4. So long as you can prove it, sure

ian 2025-08-05 06:35 p.m.

I want to make it clear here I am not saying "you're right but can't prove it"

ian 2025-08-05 06:35 p.m.

I am simply emphasizing my clients' rights to be presumed innocent of the crimes of contempt and perjury, like any other crime

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:36 p.m.

Please make the affidavits

ian 2025-08-05 06:36 p.m.

I will

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:36 p.m.

I am begging you to make the affidavits so I can type this motion with haste

ian 2025-08-05 06:36 p.m.

Im not on pc

ian 2025-08-05 06:36 p.m.

But I will

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:37 p.m.

I never could have even had a duty to you people

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:37 p.m.

As I said, you added me to a groupchat against my will

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:40 p.m.

@cabot

Anyways please let me know on that motion

meowiitten

As I said, you added me to a groupchat against my will

ian 2025-08-05 06:41 p.m.

Seeking legal advice

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:41 p.m.

You solicited it from me and I gave you none

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:41 p.m.

Don't be ridiculous

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:42 p.m.

Even someone opening a ticket in my firm doesn't establish attorney-client relationship(edited)

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:42 p.m.

I don't even know why you are going down this path quite frankly

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:42 p.m.

You're just letting this one person drag you further down after what you did in a seperate action

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:43 p.m.

Saving your integrity I will not mention it

meowiitten

Even someone opening a ticket in my firm doesn't establish attorney-client relationship(edited)

ian 2025-08-05 06:43 p.m.

...

ian 2025-08-05 06:44 p.m.

(a) A person who, directly or through an authorized representative, consults an attorney for the purpose of retaining the attorney or securing legal service or advice from the attorney in the attorney’s professional capacity, is a prospective client.
(b) Even when no attorney-client relationship ensues, an attorney who has communicated with a prospective client shall not use or reveal protected information that the attorney learned as a result of the consultation, except as rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information of a former client.(edited)

ian 2025-08-05 06:44 p.m.

Rule 1.15 of the Mayflower Rules of Professional Conduct or Ethics Rules or ethics code or whatever

ian 2025-08-05 06:44 p.m.

It's also 1.18 of the model rules of professional conduct

ian 2025-08-05 06:44 p.m.

@cabot

is this punk for real

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.

Do you realize how ridiculous this is? I can basically add prosecutors to a groupchat for this matter, tell them what I did, and get them all disqualified, permanently, because they somehow have confidential information of what I did

ian 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.

An attorney subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the attorney received from the prospective and protected client information, except as provided in paragraph (d). If an attorney is prohibited from representation under this paragraph, no attorney in a firm with which that attorney is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter, except as provided in paragraph (d).

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.

Because I "expected" they would represent me, solely because they're lawyers

meowiitten

Do you realize how ridiculous this is? I can basically add prosecutors to a groupchat for this matter, tell them what I did, and get them all disqualified, permanently, because the...

ian 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.

Prosecutors arent already part of the case

ian 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.

I mean

ian 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.

Prosecutors

ian 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.

ARE already part of the case

ian 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.

You werent

ian 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.

You took it on afterwards

ian 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.

ian 2025-08-05 06:46 p.m.

that's (c)

ian 2025-08-05 06:46 p.m.

Bro you got privileged info, switched sides and used it against us

ian 2025-08-05 06:46 p.m.

Get out of here

ian 2025-08-05 06:46 p.m.

I should report you

meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:47 p.m.

Needlessly ruining yourself

cabot used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-08-05 06:48 p.m.

Case Modified

@cabot

has added @Deverus to the case channel.

meowiitten

Needlessly ruining yourself

ian 2025-08-05 06:49 p.m.

@cabot

is there an ex parte disclosure you have ready for us? Or why has deverus just been added so out of the blue

Deverus 2025-08-05 06:50 p.m.

good evening your honour, esteemed litigants.

just to put this on the record, the Attorney General did, pursuant to mr.sado's appointment as special deputy solicitor general or whatever title he has for this case, did waive any conflict of interest that mr.sado may have so that he could represent the state's interests on behalf of the government.

User

Message could not be loaded.

Deverus 2025-08-05 06:50 p.m.

ian

@cabot is there an ex parte disclosure you have ready for us? Or why has deverus just been added so out of the blue

Deverus 2025-08-05 06:50 p.m.

i asked.

ian

@cabot is there an ex parte disclosure you have ready for us? Or why has deverus just been added so out of the blue

cabot 2025-08-05 06:50 p.m.

Okay

cabot 2025-08-05 06:51 p.m.

If you make any sort of baseless assertion like that against me again I'm imprisoning you for one hour and giving you a $500,000 fine

cabot 2025-08-05 06:51 p.m.

Do you understand?

cabot 2025-08-05 06:51 p.m.

You do it continuously in my court and I give latitude because frankly it is so de minimis and unimpactful that I don't care

cabot 2025-08-05 06:51 p.m.

But you're going to get on my nerves very quickly if you ever make that assertion again in my courtroom

cabot 2025-08-05 06:51 p.m.

Understand?

ian 2025-08-05 06:52 p.m.

I saw he was added and I assumed he DMed you, and I asked if he did

ian 2025-08-05 06:52 p.m.

I don't see the problem, it wasn't a baseless assertion, it was a well-founded question

cabot 2025-08-05 06:52 p.m.

No you made a baseless accusation which quite literally is available in the filing centre for all attorneys to view

ian 2025-08-05 06:53 p.m.

I made a well-founded question based on what I saw

ian 2025-08-05 06:53 p.m.

And to me the filing center isn't a channel I check constantly

ian 2025-08-05 06:53 p.m.

Even then all deverus sent in there was linking the channel

cabot 2025-08-05 06:53 p.m.

I'd expect you to check it before you acuse me of misconduct

ian 2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.

Who wouldn't conclude that perhaps he DMed you

cabot

I'd expect you to check it before you acuse me of misconduct

ian 2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.

I did not

ian 2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.

Misconduct would be if you failed to provide it

ian 2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.

It had been 5 seconds

ian 2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.

Since you added him

cabot 2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.

I find you in direct criminal contempt, I will be imprisoning you for 1 hour and you will pay a $500,000 to a member of the prothonary's office and I am disqualifying you as counsel

ian 2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.

I didn't accuse anybody of anything, I made a well-founded question your honor

cabot 2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.

Good day

cabot used

/remove

clerkFlow Bot2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.

Case Modified

@cabot

has removed @ian from the case channel.

cabot

I find you in direct criminal contempt, I will be imprisoning you for 1 hour and you will pay a $500,000 to a member of the prothonary's office and I am disqualifying you as counse...

cabot 2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.

Written order will follow tomorrow

cabot 2025-08-05 06:55 p.m.

@bob78711new

Find a new attorney that doesn't misconduct their professional duties and obligations

cabot 2025-08-05 06:55 p.m.

24 hours

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:56 p.m.

@cabot

I ask you reconsider on dismissing him, this is a very emotional case, blood runs hot. I ask you just give him some time to cool down

Nicklaus used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-08-05 06:56 p.m.

Case Modified

@Nicklaus

has added @Deverus to the case channel.

cabot 2025-08-05 06:57 p.m.

Sorry he needs to learn the hard way that those assertions are out of line

cabot

Sorry he needs to learn the hard way that those assertions are out of line

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:59 p.m.

Well your honor, in all fairness there has yet to be any proof that the counselor disclosed his relationship to the DOJ Prior to him being hired. (considering the TRO hearing) additionally it was demonstrated during the TRO hearing that their is serious concern for government misconduct

bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:59 p.m.

I dont belive it is out of line to call into question the governments conduct on this when it has already been brought up once

cabot 2025-08-05 07:00 p.m.

This isn't about sado he made an accusation I engaged in ex parte communications with some lawyer I have never even come across in my life with no basis whatsoever

cabot 2025-08-05 07:00 p.m.

He didn't question government conduct he specifically questioned my integrity, impartiality and my conduct in that statement with no basis whatsoever

cabot 2025-08-05 07:01 p.m.

If he fails to conduct appropriate due diligence before accusing judges of misconduct or misbehaviour then he must pay the appropriate price

cabot 2025-08-05 07:01 p.m.

He has 24 hours to pay the fine to the office of the prothonary, after which time he will be remanded into the custody of the Attorney General for 1 hour

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:02 p.m.

Oh my, I agree this conduct is not the best, I ask you allow me to lead these proceedings as first chair and allow him to continue in a more limited capacity as 2nd Chair

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:02 p.m.

At this time it is very hard to find competent lawyers

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:02 p.m.

the Chief Judge just had a press conference about that

cabot 2025-08-05 07:03 p.m.

@meowiitten

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:03 p.m.

What do we do now

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:03 p.m.

npz is disqualified, bob is disqualified

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:04 p.m.

I myself did not even get a chance to respond to the disqualifications

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:04 p.m.

of myself

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:04 p.m.

Well yours was bound to happen

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:04 p.m.

This isn't even a personal attack

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:04 p.m.

It's just automatic

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:04 p.m.

can I see the rule that states

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:04 p.m.

that I cant pro se and represent the others?

cabot 2025-08-05 07:04 p.m.

I will give you 24 hours to find new counsel, let me know if you enjoy the fruits of your search

cabot

I will give you 24 hours to find new counsel, let me know if you enjoy the fruits of your search

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:05 p.m.

your honor I verbal motion to reconsider my disqualification

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:05 p.m.

I did not even get a chance to respond to it

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:18 p.m.

Your honor, defense is trying to disqualify me under 3.7, first of all I have not represented the party's during trial, all appearances have been pretrial appearances as 3.7 (a) state, additionally I have their informed consent satisfying 3.7 (a)1

Defence cites Iannaccone and Stoner to argue that pro se representation cannot extend to others. But these cases have no bearing on licensed attorneys representing parties with standing in litigation. I am not a layperson attempting to appear on behalf of third parties.

There is no jurisdictional defect here.

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:18 p.m.

--

Relating to the disqualification of defence counsel

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:19 p.m.

I submit these two affidavits in support of the verbal motion

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:19 p.m.

and some photos forthcoming

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:21 p.m.

this photo shows that the defense counsel knew he was being approached about representation

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:21 p.m.

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:22 p.m.

Cc: @cabot

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:23 p.m.

He can not claim that he was added against his will when he showed active intrest in taking the case as seen by photo 2

Deverus 2025-08-05 07:24 p.m.

that's hardly what would qualify as an "active interest"

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:24 p.m.

I’m not even in the election

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:25 p.m.

Also as a matter of fact, there’s a presumption against disqualifying defense counsel

meowiitten

I’m not even in the election

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:25 p.m.

you were

Deverus

that's hardly what would qualify as an "active interest"

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:26 p.m.

he was saying that he would take it

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:26 p.m.

and that was his payment

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:26 p.m.

that meets the requirements for a prospective client

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:26 p.m.

No one even told me any information about the case

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:26 p.m.

So what is it

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:26 p.m.

Either I divulged confidential information or I didn’t

meowiitten

No one even told me any information about the case

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:27 p.m.

I have 2 affidavits supporting me that I told you confidential information before you said your payment in VC

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:27 p.m.

Which are false

Deverus 2025-08-05 07:27 p.m.

“help” does not qualify as him agreeing to represent the plaintiff in the matter. help could be any number of things which aren’t direct representation from legal advice to ghostwriting.

even so, him stating what it would take to “help” does not qualify as any sort of contract which would establish an attorney client relationship

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.

The standard for disqualifying defense counsel is designed to protect the interests of my principal (the DOJ)

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.

Not you

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.

They waived any and all conflicts

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.

and we have still yet to recive an answer weather you disclosed this relationship to the DOJ

Deverus 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.

you have gotten that answer, actually

meowiitten

They waived any and all conflicts

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.

1 there is no proof of this I have seen

Deverus

you have gotten that answer, actually

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.

where?

Deverus

good evening your honour, esteemed litigants. just to put this on the record, the Attorney General did, pursuant to mr.sado's appointment as special deputy solicitor general or wh...

Deverus 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.

i stated it on the record

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.

2 you still violated 1.7 by not clearing it with us

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.

Also for this matter, @Deverus should be disqualified because I had his boss found in contempt a long time ago

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:29 p.m.

This is how a tight knit community works man

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:29 p.m.

I don’t know what to tell you

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:29 p.m.

This is Roblox

Deverus 2025-08-05 07:29 p.m.

lmao

meowiitten

Also for this matter, @Deverus should be disqualified because I had his boss found in contempt a long time ago

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:30 p.m.

your using arbitrary analogys that dont line up with the bars rules

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:31 p.m.

Don’t know what to tell you man(edited)

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:31 p.m.

The disqualification standard for defense counsel is different from that of a plaintiff’s counsel(edited)

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:31 p.m.

Way different

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:32 p.m.

And it just so happens that the DOJ understands this. So they waived any and all COI

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:32 p.m.

Now if I went all the way with you, then switched sides, that would be different

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:32 p.m.

But there was no client relationship with CF

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:34 p.m.

Rule 1.15 Duties to Prospective Client

(a) "A person who, directly or through an authorized representative, consults an attorney for the purpose of retaining the attorney or securing legal service or advice from the attorney in the attorney’s professional capacity, is a prospective client." - Prospective Client Defined

(b) "Even when no attorney-client relationship ensues, an attorney who has communicated with a prospective client shall not use or reveal protected information that the attorney learned as a result of the consultation, except as rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information of a former client." - He has information

(c) "An attorney subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the attorney received from the prospective and protected client information, except as provided in paragraph (d). If an attorney is prohibited from representation under this paragraph, no attorney in a firm with which that attorney is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter, except as provided in paragraph (d)." - It is the same exact case

(d) "When the attorney has received information that prohibits representation as provided in paragraph (c), representation of the affected client is permissible if:"

(1) "both the affected client and the prospective client have given informed consent, or"

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:34 p.m.

We did not give informed consent

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:34 p.m.

you are in violation of bar ethics rule 1.15

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:34 p.m.

You are free to report me to the bar

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:34 p.m.

I encourage it

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:35 p.m.

They will just find what I said controls

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:35 p.m.

@Deverus

I appeal to your better judgement so this does not need to get messy, by the very definition of rule 1.15 he is in violation

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:35 p.m.

its textbook

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:39 p.m.

My “client” is technically the DOJ, not you or anyone on your side

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:40 p.m.

Like I said, you have no ability to contest their waiver of COI

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:41 p.m.

@cabot

If you could resolve this so we can move on

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:42 p.m.

???

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:42 p.m.

This is not about that

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:42 p.m.

its a conflict with us

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:42 p.m.

have you even read the bar rules?

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:42 p.m.

Even if there’s a conflict… there’s no interest

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:42 p.m.

What’s my interest? Beating you?

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:42 p.m.

I’d hope so

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:42 p.m.

That’s what every defense attorney aspires to do. Beat the Plaintiff

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:44 p.m.

The bar rule states that your not allowed to take a case against us after being approached in this matter unless both partys give informed consent

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:45 p.m.

"An attorney subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the attorney received from the prospective and protected client information, except as provided in paragraph (d)."

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:45 p.m.

(d) "When the attorney has received information that prohibits representation as provided in paragraph (c), representation of the affected client is permissible if: (1) both the affected client and the prospective client have given informed consent, or"

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:45 p.m.

You can continue to restate what we already know from reading the rules or consult the disqualification standard of defense attorneys

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:46 p.m.

Please go make a bar complaint

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:46 p.m.

Nobody has time for your weird fantasies and speculation

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:46 p.m.

lets leave this for the judge to decide

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:46 p.m.

or actualy

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:47 p.m.

@cabot

I request a hearing on this matter

bob78711new

The bar rule states that your not allowed to take a case against us after being approached in this matter unless both partys give informed consent

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:55 p.m.

What confidential information did I acquire

meowiitten

What confidential information did I acquire

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:55 p.m.

its in the afidavits

meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:55 p.m.

You can disclose them

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:55 p.m.

Why?

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:55 p.m.

Its Trial Strat

bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:56 p.m.

I am not going to tell the rest of the attorney pool

bob78711new

Its Trial Strat

meowiitten 2025-08-05 08:02 p.m.

Whatever is in those affidavits aren’t evidence for trial

meowiitten 2025-08-05 08:02 p.m.

That’s not relevant to the due process claim(edited)

meowiitten 2025-08-05 08:02 p.m.

They’re relevant to me

meowiitten 2025-08-05 08:02 p.m.

And only me

bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:02 p.m.

yeah

bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:02 p.m.

because its on the

bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:02 p.m.

motion to dq u

meowiitten 2025-08-05 08:12 p.m.

Please, by all means

bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:26 p.m.

also

meowiitten

Please, by all means

bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:26 p.m.

got a

bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:26 p.m.

explenation for this?

cabot 2025-08-05 08:26 p.m.

Stop talking to each other

cabot 2025-08-05 08:26 p.m.

File motions or talk to me

cabot

File motions or talk to me

bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:27 p.m.

Your honor I requested a hearing

bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:28 p.m.

can we set a date and time for that?

bob78711new

Click to see attachment.

meowiitten 2025-08-05 08:28 p.m.

He’s not sued in his individual capacity. The state represents him

bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:29 p.m.

fair

bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:35 p.m.

@cabot

can we schedule on my requested hearing?

Deverus 2025-08-05 09:23 p.m.

your honour, the state contests to wasting the court's time with a hearing regarding a matter that could be articulated in a written motion. @cabot

Deverus 2025-08-05 09:26 p.m.

even so- considering bob's being disqualified in these proceedings, the court should not entertain his request for hearing on a verbal motion to disqualify the state's counsel, whereby the court ought to remind bob that he would need acquire new counsel to represent the rest of the plaintiff's interests as opposed to attempting to do so himself without the leave of the court.

Deverus 2025-08-05 09:29 p.m.

at the very least, the state would like your honour's indication on whether or not you're hearing his (verbal) motion or even so much as allowing him to represent plaintiff in these proceedings so that the state can act accordingly, as bob continues to make rather grievous accusations and attempts admit evidence into record to levy against the state's counsel very serious accusations of misconduct and impropriety.

Deverus

even so- considering bob's being disqualified in these proceedings, the court should not entertain his request for hearing on a verbal motion to disqualify the state's counsel, whe...

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:37 a.m.

As I provided the bar rules state that I may represent them with their consent

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:37 a.m.

I have met that requirement

Deverus 2025-08-06 06:57 a.m.

the state would like to remind your honour that this court, after bob withdrew as counsel of record, was disqualified as counsel of record for the plaintiffs.

(though he withdrew and now apparently popped back in without filing NOA which is, in and of itself, a bit of a problem innit.)

we ask that the court make clear to bob that he’s not permitted to act as such and consider sanctions if necessary.

@cabot

Deverus

the state would like to remind your honour that this court, after bob withdrew as counsel of record, was disqualified as counsel of record for the plaintiffs. (though he withd...

bob78711new 2025-08-06 01:53 p.m.

I did not withdraw

ian

Bob has withdrawn his representation of himself and others

Deverus 2025-08-06 02:30 p.m.

then what is this @bob78711new

Deverus

then what is this @bob78711new

bob78711new 2025-08-06 02:37 p.m.

that was npz

Deverus

then what is this @bob78711new

bob78711new 2025-08-06 02:37 p.m.

I think he ment I withdrew to co counsel

bob78711new 2025-08-06 02:37 p.m.

as was my plan

cabot

Okay sure he’s disqualified

meowiitten 2025-08-06 02:58 p.m.

@bob78711new

bob78711new

I think he ment I withdrew to co counsel

Deverus 2025-08-06 03:01 p.m.

the verbiage that npz used was very clear. “withdrawn representation of himself and others.”

the matter, however, is moot as you were disqualified from these proceedings.

@cabot

we ask that the court hold Mr.bob to the 24hr deadline to find new counsel in this case.

meowiitten

@bob78711new

bob78711new 2025-08-06 03:02 p.m.

I appealed this disqualification

bob78711new 2025-08-06 03:02 p.m.

I am awaiting ruling

bob78711new 2025-08-06 03:02 p.m.

this disqualification was not in light with the district courts rules as I was not able to give a reply

actxrz 2025-08-06 03:18 p.m.

you.. appealed? do you even know how to do that

bob78711new

I appealed this disqualification

meowiitten 2025-08-06 03:27 p.m.

Trying to get chick fil a

actxrz

you.. appealed? do you even know how to do that

bob78711new 2025-08-06 03:32 p.m.

Well I motioned to reconsider

meowiitten

Click to see attachment.

bob78711new 2025-08-06 03:32 p.m.

the bar rules say I can

meowiitten 2025-08-06 03:33 p.m.

bob78711new 2025-08-06 04:00 p.m.

@cabot

can we have a hearing on the motion to reconsider

Deverus 2025-08-06 05:19 p.m.

once again, defendant contests the wasting of the court's time with hearings when plaintiff could articulate their legal arguments via a written motion @cabot

Deverus 2025-08-06 05:21 p.m.

i would also like to make it apparent that plaintiff is approaching the court's deadline for them to find new counsel. we're under 2 hours out.

cabot 2025-08-06 05:30 p.m.

Sigh

bob78711new

@cabot can we have a hearing on the motion to reconsider

cabot 2025-08-06 05:31 p.m.

It will make no difference to my judgment so we will not do that

cabot 2025-08-06 05:31 p.m.

Right

cabot 2025-08-06 05:31 p.m.

I’m not reading up

cabot 2025-08-06 05:31 p.m.

Everyone can summarise their positions and what was said in two sentences

cabot 2025-08-06 05:31 p.m.

If counsel speak to each other instead of addressing the court from hereinafter you’re getting contempt

cabot 2025-08-06 05:32 p.m.

Hope everyone understands, bless!

cabot

Everyone can summarise their positions and what was said in two sentences

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:33 p.m.

My position is very clear your honor, under bar rule 3.7 I am permitted to represent myself pro se and the rest of the plaintiffs if I have their informed consent which I do.

cabot

Hope everyone understands, bless!

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:33 p.m.

We thank you for your understanding.

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:33 p.m.

or I should say leniency

bob78711new

My position is very clear your honor, under bar rule 3.7 I am permitted to represent myself pro se and the rest of the plaintiffs if I have their informed consent which I do.

cabot 2025-08-06 05:34 p.m.

So you want to represent them

cabot 2025-08-06 05:34 p.m.

And yourself

cabot 2025-08-06 05:34 p.m.

So asking for vacatur of the disqualification order

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.

Yes your honor.

cabot 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.

On second thought I’m inclined to agree, I vacate my previous order regarding disqualification

cabot 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.

This sort of nitpicking is really beneath the dignity of the court

cabot 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.

You shall proceed as counsel for the plaintiffs

cabot

On second thought I’m inclined to agree, I vacate my previous order regarding disqualification

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.

May I present my case on the disqualification of opposing counsel?

cabot 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.

Just make that clear in the documents

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.

Its against bar rules by very definition

cabot 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.

Regarding who

cabot

Just make that clear in the documents

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.

Will do

cabot

Regarding who

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.

Sado

cabot 2025-08-06 05:36 p.m.

Oh okay sure, but find some precedent to support you

cabot

Oh okay sure, but find some precedent to support you

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:36 p.m.

The bar rule supports me directly

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:36 p.m.

Sado was engaging the plantiffs as prospective clients

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:36 p.m.

and was given information on the

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:36 p.m.

case

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:36 p.m.

as my affidavits state

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:36 p.m.

which I will repost

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:37 p.m.

Under section d he is prohibited from representing the opposing counsel if he does not meet one of two criteria

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:38 p.m.

he fails criteria d(1)

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:38 p.m.

he may have the consent of the government

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:38 p.m.

but we did not consent

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:38 p.m.

as required the bar rules

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:38 p.m.

I hope I explained this well

Deverus 2025-08-06 05:48 p.m.

right then.

allow me to be frank, your honour: the only evidence, barring these affidavits, that plaintiff has presented which would indicate sado came into possession of any so-called "confidential" information is a screenshot of sado declining to represent them, nothing more. on the record, sado has indicated that he was told nothing beyond the fact that they were bringing action against defendants. the simple knowledge that plaintiffs are filing action is far from what one would reasonably consider protected information. while plaintiff contends that he has came into possession of protected information, the only thing to back this is their sworn statement, whereby sado has contradicted that claim with his own sworn statement on the record.

at this rate all we have is a game of he-said-she-said, and one party is either perjuring themselves or mischaracterizing the situation, but until plaintiff can produce more evidence to support their claims, we'll never know. at this rate, what you'd be ruling on is conjecture, which the state contends is far below the threshold required to disqualify counsel in this event, as courts before this have determined that "disqualification is not warranted absent proof of a reasonable probability that counsel actually acquired privileged, confidential information" Brown v Dist. Ct. 14 P.3d 1266 (2000) (emphasis added)

plaintiff has far from established reasonable probability that sado actually acquired any such information, your honour. any motion to disqualify him based on the evidence present here must be denied.

Deverus 2025-08-06 05:49 p.m.

@cabot

bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:56 p.m.

Your honor,

Brown v. District Court, 14 P.3d 1266 (2000)

establishes whether there is a reasonable probability that the attorney received privileged or confidential information, not whether the attorney formally agreed to represent the party.

Plaintiffs have submitted sworn affidavits attesting that Sado was approached for representation, and during those discussions, plaintiffs shared specific evidence, trial strategy, and the theory of the case. That exceeds the threshold of mere notice of intent to file a suit. Those communications were plainly confidential in nature, and Sado’s receipt of them, even if he ultimately declined representation, creates a clear conflict.

In Coles v. Marsh, 560 F.2d 186 (3d Cir. 1977), the court emphasized that even preliminary discussions in contemplation of representation trigger the duty of confidentiality.

also under Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 580 F.2d 1311 (7th Cir. 1978), a lawyer who gains confidential information during a prospective consultation cannot later appear adverse to that party, even if they decline the representation.

they are trying to turn this down into a "he said she said"

You already said yourself that biased on the apparent facts the government may have already committed misconduct and they have even been dodging around the question of weather their consent was given before the initial proceedings.

cabot

On second thought I’m inclined to agree, I vacate my previous order regarding disqualification

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:26 p.m.

I should let you know that there is an emergency application for a stay of this case being presented to SCOM

meowiitten

I should let you know that there is an emergency application for a stay of this case being presented to SCOM

cabot 2025-08-06 06:35 p.m.

Oh I see

cabot 2025-08-06 06:35 p.m.

I assume by DOJ?

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:35 p.m.

Yep

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:36 p.m.

I was thinking of mentioning this at the TRO hearing but the fucking name of the case eluded me

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:36 p.m.

Purcell

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:36 p.m.

Court not supposed to enjoin state election officials on the eve of an election

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:37 p.m.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/18nmxz1T-I0uHpDr8i5bkADyaVsCIs51v/view?usp=sharing

Emergency Application for Stay.pdf

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:37 p.m.

Here it is

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:37 p.m.

Presented to applications justice

cabot

You shall proceed as counsel for the plaintiffs

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:42 p.m.

Ridiculous

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:42 p.m.

It’s ok

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:42 p.m.

Anyways this case was kind of boofed from the start

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:43 p.m.

That’s why I’m going to SCOM

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:43 p.m.

It’s unfortunate but this happens more often than not(edited)

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:43 p.m.

And law is nit-picky I feel a little insulted that it was called beneath the dignity of this court

meowiitten

It’s unfortunate but this happens more often than not(edited)

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:44 p.m.

For example prisoner civil rights cases are dismissed so much that the case law says to treat them with skepticism lol

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:44 p.m.

As opposed to normal complaints which are construed liberally

bob78711new

Click to see attachment.

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:50 p.m.

@cabot

Honestly I’d file a motion for sanctions based on them making up the fact that they somehow gave me confidential information by telling me they planned to sue the MEC but I’ll leave this up to you. We can all move past this and have a productive case that isn’t based on conspiracy theories

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:51 p.m.

So that’s the last I’ll say about that

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:52 p.m.

Needless to say I was never entitled to represent them and they reached out to me to represent me. As I am a private citizen I had no obligation to tend to their needs. I never accepted their case and as much was clear. And they should know that I only offer consultations in my server (I have an entire ticket system). I’m not some priest bound by a permanent confessional seal

cabot 2025-08-06 06:54 p.m.

I agree

cabot 2025-08-06 06:55 p.m.

What's SC original jurisdiction in Const

cabot 2025-08-06 06:55 p.m.

Does anyone have that

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:55 p.m.

Same as US Supreme Court I’m pretty sure

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:55 p.m.

They just borrowed article 3

meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:55 p.m.

It might be broader

cabot 2025-08-06 06:55 p.m.

Oh I see, pretty wide then

cabot 2025-08-06 06:56 p.m.

Hm cases of significant national importance should be brought directly to SC.

bob78711new 2025-08-06 07:02 p.m.

Your honor, @cabot, bar rules state that he need not accept representation, but if he was given information in the discussions which we did over VC then he is barred from representing the defence

bob78711new 2025-08-06 07:03 p.m.

the DOJ has many lawyers who can represent the government

cabot 2025-08-06 07:05 p.m.

Unless you're telling me he received privileged information I'm not going to remove him

Deverus 2025-08-06 07:05 p.m.

your honour, as we've addressed now multiple times, plaintiff is simply claiming that. they submitted a sworn statement, sado has stated on record that he didn't receive any privileged information, and vice versa.

cabot 2025-08-06 07:05 p.m.

I don't need anymore representations from DOJ everytime the other party speaks

cabot 2025-08-06 07:05 p.m.

It's getting annoying now

cabot 2025-08-06 07:05 p.m.

You speak when I ask thank you

cabot 2025-08-06 07:05 p.m.

My chat is clogged up for that very reason

cabot 2025-08-06 07:06 p.m.

The same applies vice versa for the record

cabot

Unless you're telling me he received privileged information I'm not going to remove him

bob78711new 2025-08-06 07:29 p.m.

He did

bob78711new 2025-08-06 07:31 p.m.

Trial strategy and a description of evidence is privileged

cabot

The same applies vice versa for the record

bob78711new 2025-08-06 07:32 p.m.

Understood

meowiitten 2025-08-06 08:34 p.m.

https://trello.com/c/cLI0hQcc/86-duckman13528-et-al-v-columbia-first-et-al

Duckman13528, et al. v. Columbia First, et al.

Duckman13528, et al. v. Columbia First, et al.

---

Filing Attorney:

Filer: Name
SC Bar Membership: No. No
Discord: Name#
Filed on behalf of Appellant

Time Filed: MM/DD/2023

Docket

Aug. 6 2025:

Emergency application for stay filed by sadoimpacto.

Aug. 6 2025:

Associate Justice krabzatonin recuses from the case.
**Aug. 6...

Labels

Discretionary Review

meowiitten 2025-08-06 10:26 p.m.

@cabot

Following the guidance of the Supreme Court, this case should be severed, and no PI should be entertained as to the other plaintiffs:

"At minimum, the proper course would be to sever the plaintiffs, and grant relief to the individual filer, while maintaining the status quo in order to afford the others a chance to be heard."

Duckman, et al., v. Columbia First, et al., No. 02-27 (Turntable, J., denying application for stay)(edited)

meowiitten 2025-08-06 10:26 p.m.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TLp5vbcWngMZSLiDN8ytnoKT9FUSfyvB/view?usp=sharing

meowiitten 2025-08-06 10:26 p.m.

Although this denial is pretty contradicatory and I'm not sure what the message is

meowiitten 2025-08-06 10:32 p.m.

What is clear is that the expectation is that this case be severed

bob78711new 2025-08-06 10:37 p.m.

Your honor, at this time I see no point in overturning your ruling on my representation based on outside caselaw that expressly conflicts with the bar's ethical guidelines.

bob78711new 2025-08-06 10:39 p.m.

and with the exigent circumstances of the court present at the moment, which the chief judge himself discussed in his press conference, referring to the lack of attorneys of course, I believe it would be against the interests of the public in this matter to dismiss me once again.

bob78711new 2025-08-06 10:42 p.m.

Motion to hold opposing counsel in contempt

bob78711new 2025-08-06 10:43 p.m.

For address myself instead of the honorable court

meowiitten

@cabot Following the guidance of the Supreme Court, this case should be severed, and no PI should be entertained as to the other plaintiffs: "At minimum, the p...(edited)

meowiitten 2025-08-06 10:55 p.m.

Motion Schedule:

https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1402020908427645038/1402410161645031535

So the way that this should be severed: (1) bob78711new remains the sole plaintiff in the current action (CV-375-25); (2) all other individual plaintiffs (WooleyMcNoble, DanielCrusoe, aegeangazi, s_edative) should be severed into individual pro se actions (pending counsel) or dismissed for want of jurisdiction/prosecution; and (3) Columbia First Party must be treated as improperly before the court, since it cannot represent itself pro se (Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found. of Buffalo, Inc., 906 F.2d 59, 61 (2d Cir. 1990)).

The TRO should be vacated and narrowed to apply only to bob78711new until jurisdiction is properly reestablished over the severed plaintiffs. The preliminary injunction hearing should be postponed until these issues are resolved.

I can write up a proposed order and/or a motion to sever, but I don't think it's necessary since this is a command from above, and you should be able to do it sua sponte.

"[T]he pro se litigant is unable to formally represent the remaining candidates[.]" duckman13528, et al. v. Columbia First Party, et al., No. 02-27, slip op. at 2 (Mayflower Sup. Ct. Aug. 6, 2025).

@cabot

bob78711new 2025-08-06 11:02 p.m.

May we have a ruling on the disqualification before this matter

bob78711new 2025-08-07 12:33 a.m.

wrong channel

bob78711new 2025-08-07 12:33 a.m.

my apologies your honor

cabot pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:16 p.m.

cabot 2025-08-07 06:36 a.m.

Great

krm 2025-08-07 06:36 a.m.

Vice Lord Chancellor is here

cabot 2025-08-07 06:36 a.m.

Good girl

cabot 2025-08-07 06:36 a.m.

Anyway

krm 2025-08-07 06:36 a.m.

cabot 2025-08-07 06:36 a.m.

Quiet Vice Chancellor.

cabot 2025-08-07 06:36 a.m.

Good.

cabot 2025-08-07 06:37 a.m.

All other plaintiffs except bobby are severed from the complaint and their interests are dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. I will accept a refiling on their behalf if you wish to represent them. An amended complaint will suffice

cabot 2025-08-07 06:38 a.m.

@bob78711new

meowiitten

DEFENDANTS' MOTION SCHEDULE 1. [Defendants' First Motion to Dismiss](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hffz8h-M5d3lXiQ3MqxCCWavnJx7zT-p/view?usp=sharing) 2. [Government's ...

meowiitten 2025-08-07 12:28 p.m.

@cabot

For that matter, the only things left for review now are the 3 motions

meowiitten 2025-08-07 12:32 p.m.

2 MTDs and 1 motion to intervene

meowiitten 2025-08-07 12:32 p.m.

It’s been over 48 hours and the defendant didn’t file a response so

meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:17 p.m.

Actually the MTI is moot now

meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:18 p.m.

So is the 2nd MTD

meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:18 p.m.

The first MTD is the only item to review

meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:23 p.m.

Actually

meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:24 p.m.

@cabot

This entire case is moot since he can’t personally litigate their license suspension, which is the only issue remaining

meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:24 p.m.

He got his election relief already. Anything final judgment relief that would be pointless since he got what he wanted

meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:26 p.m.

What he has to do is refile a separate complaint based solely on the license suspension in the name of CF

meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:26 p.m.

But by the time that case is adjudicated it will also indeed be moot

meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:26 p.m.

Since the suspension expires on the 17th

meowiitten

Since the suspension expires on the 17th

bob78711new 2025-08-07 01:40 p.m.

They revoked the license

meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:41 p.m.

Oh. Well it looks like they just revoked it yesterday

meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:42 p.m.

Either way, you can't litigate that pro se. Need to file a seperate case

meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:42 p.m.

With you as their attorney

meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:42 p.m.

CF's attorney

meowiitten 2025-08-07 05:33 p.m.

@cabot

I move to dismiss this case without prejudice since Bob can't litigate CF's license revocation on his own accord since that injury does not belong to him

cabot 2025-08-07 07:44 p.m.

Okay do you want to refile @bob78711new(edited)

cabot

Okay do you want to refile @bob78711new(edited)

meowiitten 2025-08-07 07:44 p.m.

The case title would change entirely from whatever it is now to Columbia First v. DOS and whatever other official

cabot

Okay do you want to refile @bob78711new(edited)

bob78711new 2025-08-07 07:46 p.m.

we will refile, but before we adjourn I'd like to hold opposing counsel in contempt, since you did not rule on my motion prior, and for the court to refer him to the bar for his ethical violations in this case.

meowiitten 2025-08-09 04:17 p.m.

@cabot

cabot 2025-08-09 05:31 p.m.

What needs doing here

cabot 2025-08-09 05:31 p.m.

I’m not holding him in contempt

cabot 2025-08-09 05:31 p.m.

File a complaint with the bar if you wish

cabot

What needs doing here

meowiitten 2025-08-09 06:14 p.m.

Dismissal since he can't litigate the CF's injury

meowiitten 2025-08-09 06:14 p.m.

By himself

meowiitten 2025-08-09 06:14 p.m.

Like that's the only issue that's still live

meowiitten 2025-08-09 06:14 p.m.

The revocation of their license

meowiitten 2025-08-09 06:14 p.m.

He would need to file an entirely different case

meowiitten 2025-08-09 06:14 p.m.

He's also now district attorney

cabot 2025-08-09 07:16 p.m.

Alright case dismissed without prejudice and you can refile with necessary challenges and changes when ready @bob78711new

cabot 2025-08-09 07:16 p.m.

@meowiitten

meowiitten 2025-08-09 07:16 p.m.

cabot 2025-08-13 07:21 p.m.

[Needs TRO authored](edited)

krm 2025-09-12 09:46 a.m.

@cabot

can i archive

cabot 2025-09-12 10:07 a.m.

yes

krm used

/transcript

clerkFlow Bot2025-09-12 10:14 a.m.

Creating transcript..

clerkFlow Bot2025-09-12 10:14 a.m.

Channel Permissions Synced

Permissions have been synced to Volume XI.

clerkFlow Bot2025-09-12 10:14 a.m.

https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1329678726383927409/1416064359947567155 Successfully created transcript.

Exported 822 messages